Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/99/2014

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sapehia

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	99 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	24.02.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	13.02.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Pawan Kumar, R/o H.No.3071, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

             Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  M/s United India Insurance Company Limited through its Manager/Incharge B.M.Bharti, Service HUB, Regional Office SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

2]  M/s United India Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Manager Sh.Rajinder Sharma, SCO No.177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

   

    IInd Address:- SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

 

3]  M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Asstt. General Manager Smt.Veena Bhan, SCO No.177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

 

4]  Ms.Pooja C/o SCO No.177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh

 

    IInd Address:- SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Sh.Ajay Sapehia, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.G.D.Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainant, his motorcycle bearing Regd. No.CH-03L-9423 was duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide Ann.C-1 for the period valid from 19.4.2012 to 18.4.2013.  It is averred that on 16.6.2012 the son of the complainant namely Romil Kumar was driving the said motorcycle and when he was coming from Bhakra Canal Narwana Branch and reached near village Mandolin, near Ganda Kheri Canal, at about 1 K.M., there was pit on the road side berm and due to pits, the motorcycle in question, being driven by the son of the complainant, got jumped and accident occurred.  Resultantly, the son of the complainant fell down on the road and motorcycle fell down in the canal. Immediately swimming persons/drivers were called, but motorcycle could not be found.  The Opposite Party No.4, through whom the vehicle was got insured was intimated and necessary papers were filled. Subsequently, the complainant supplied the copy of police report, translated copy of DDR and DL of his son to Opposite Party Insurance Company. The Surveyor appointed by the Company visited the place of occurrence and assessed the loss.  However, when the claim was not settled since long, the complainant sent legal notice and subsequently, complaint was filed, which was decided on 23.12.2013 (Ann.C-6) with directions to the OPs to pass an order of settlement of claim and to make payment of compensation of Rs.7500/- and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party Company paid the awarded amount of Rs.11,500/- and sent letter dated 27.1.2014 thereby intimating that his claim has been repudiated.  Alleging the said repudiation as illegal and deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 4 have filed joint reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question.  The occurrence of the said accident, lodging of claim and its repudiation are also admitted.  However, it is submitted that the vehicle fell in the river/canal due to negligence of the son of insured/complainant Sh.Robin, who caused an intentional damage to the motor cycle.  It was not accidental in nature but was an intentional act of the insured or his relative.  It is also submitted that throwing of motor cycle in the fast flowing Bhakra canal is an intentional and malafide intention of claiming undue insurance money from the answering OPs and the story made by the complainant is false and fabricated.  It is stated that the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding any valid and effective license to drive it.  It is also stated that there is an abnormal delay in reporting the claim to the police.  It is pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated, hence no deficiency on the part of the insurance company.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that he is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.CH-03-L-4511 and the same was insured from the Opposite Parties for the period 19.4.2012 to 18.4.2013.  The said motorcycle in question, which on the fateful day of 16.6.2012 unfortunately went out of control and fell in the Canal near Village Mandolin, District Patiala.  The said motorcycle was being driven by the son of the complainant at the time of happening of said incident.  Search was conducted but the motorcycle could not be located and an FIR dated 22.6.2012 was lodged at P.S.Kheri Gandian and a claim was duly lodged with the OPs, which was not settled for a considerable time leading to filing of a consumer Complaint bearing No.463 of 2013 on 20.8.2013 before the Hon’ble District Consumer Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh.  The Hon’ble District Forum-I, while finding deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, allowed this complaint and ordered the OPs to pass an order of settlement of claim or its repudiation within one month’s time, apart from saddling the OPs with compensation and litigation expenses.  The OPs in pursuance of these orders repudiated the claim of the complainant on 27.1.2014 vide Ann.R-3 citing some reasons for non-maintainability of the claim.  Thus giving rise to this fresh consumer complaint, which has been contested by the OPs.

 

6]       The Opposite Parties has strongly defended the repudiation of the claim of the complainant for the reasons mentioned in their repudiation letter about the delay in filing of the FIR, non-intimation of the same to the Canal Administration/Police Department, absence of untraced report, genuineness of cause of accident and the declaration as to falling of the vehicle in the Canal without ignition key.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the view that the fresh cause of action to file the present complaint has arisen to the complainant on account of the repudiation letter Ann.R-3, dated 27.1.2014 wherein the OPs have cited four basic reasons for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. However, the reply of the OPs has not categorically dealt with these four issues, which are mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 27.1.2014.  

 

8]       While dealing with the reasons for repudiation, the Opposite Parties have alleged that the complainant had delayed the intimation to the police authorities by 6 days and the same is no purpose as the OPs could not conduct a fact finding enquiry as the cause of accident remained unestablished. We have failed to comprehend the exact meaning of this condition as the Opposite Parties had duly appointed a Surveyor, who had visited the spot where the motorcycle slipped and fell-into the Canal.  The Opposite Parties have failed to place on record the Surveyor’s report or his opinion, if so made, giving rise to the suspicion of the authenticity of the accident.  The Opposite Parties have not appointed any investigator also to investigate the matter in its totality.  When the Opposite Parties themselves have failed to do the needful necessary in such kind of cases, the blame cannot be shifted on the complainant for his delay in intimating the police authorities as it was not the case of theft where the responsibility of the complainant become paramount for the reason that there can be multiplicity of claims after the vehicle which has been stolen could be used in some criminal activity or may cause some grave accident also.  In the present circumstances, when the complainant had himself disclosed the names of the friend’s of his son, namely, Asim, Anmolpreet, Manjeet and Rahul, who too were driving their vehicles along with the fateful vehicle, being driven by the complainant’s son, were the prime eye-witnesses to prove or falsify the claim of the complainant.  When the Opposite Parties have failed to adduce a proper evidence by appointing an Investigator, the blame of not settling the claim of the complainant certainly rests with them and does not shift on the complainant. 

 

9]       The allegation with regard to non-submission of untraced report is also unfounded as there was only a mere DDR and the police authorities preferred not to convert the same into an FIR after investigating the matter, the question of seeking any Untraced Report from the police authorities does not arise.  When the Opposite Parties have claimed that the vehicle in question during the currency of the policy can be called by them to ascertain about its proper upkeep, then the Opposite Parties too could have approach the Police Authorities to investigate the matter, so as to reach a definite conclusion about the happening of the incident, but no such efforts have been made by the Opposite Parties.

 

10]      The Opposite Parties in their third objection have claimed that the cause of accident, as provided, nowhere justifies the genuineness of the claim.  But the entire reply/version of the OPs is silent about this fact and the same has not been elaborately explained as to how a loss of a vehicle, which has fallen into a Canal cannot be termed to be genuine claim.  

 

11]      The Opposite Parties have also questioned about the declaration about the falling of the vehicle in the canal without ignition key, claiming it to be unauthentic.  The reply of the Opposite Parties has completely ignored this fact and has not explained about this story of the ignition key.  We understand that it is the right of the Opposite Parties to claim any spare key, which is in the custody of the complainant, is required to be deposited with the OPs, when any such eventuality arises, but when the Opposite Parties have not claimed that the complainant had himself handed over both the ignition keys (the original as well as the spare) to the Opposite Parties, such objection should not have been raised by them.  Without such a condition, it is understood that the Motorcycle was being driven with its ignition “ON” along with its key and the claim of the complainant has not been falsified by the Opposite Parties in any manner. 

12]      In view of the foregoing discussions and also in the absence of the Surveyor’s Report, which the Opposite Parties have failed to place on record, after having admitted about its appointment and also his visit the site of the incident, and in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties, their reply/version, as well as the objections raised in the repudiation letter, are out rightly ignored and the Opposite Parties are found to be deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and the present complaint deserves to be succeed qua them.

 

13]      Hence, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and dismiss qua Opposite Party No.4.  The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

[a] To pay the IDV of the motorcycle in question i.e. Rs.34000/- as per Ann.C-1.

[b] To pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant as compensation, on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment;

[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

                The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a & b] of Para 13 above from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 24.2.2014, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13^th February, 2015                                Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                                                     MEMBER

 

Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 99 OF 2014
PRESENT:   None   Dated the 13th day of February, 2015
O R D E R                      Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately; the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.4. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Madhu Mutneja)
Member	President	Member